A lesson in tone...

Justice Moore provides a lesson in tone in this unpub'd decision here today, which begins ordinarily enough like this: "This appeal[fn.1] asks the following question: If a leased vehicle is damaged in
an accident, repaired to its original condition, and returned to the lessor with no charges assessed to the lessee as a result of the accident, is the lessee able to seek damages for the 'diminished value' of the vehicle? We conclude the answer is a resounding 'no.' "
But did you catch that odd fn.1? Here's what it says:

Behave or be halved!

We note the unnecessarily disrespectful nature of statements in the plaintiff’s briefs, including: “There is ‘reality’ which should be considered but there appears to be a decision from ‘Fantasyland’ coming from the Trial Court in Orange County. The decision makes no real sense or logical reason” (original bolding omitted), and “If one is going to cause damage to another citizen’s vehicle . . . make sure the vehicle which is being damaged is a ‘leased vehicle’ and/or is located in Orange County.” We expect more professionalism from counsel.

[1/13/17 update: See, in the Metnews, C.A. Derides Appellant’s Contention, Tone of Brief]